Customs broker liability for unauthorized shipping bills and misdeclaration remains distinct from regulatory penalties under customs law.

Proceedings for confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act were not invalidated by objections based on proper officer authority under Section 28, because the duty-recovery ruling in Canon India was confined to that context and did not control these proceedings. A customs broker who filed unauthorized shipping bills in the name of a non-participating exporter at another person's behest was held responsible for misdeclaration and the resulting liability to confiscation. Penalty under the Customs Broker's Licensing Regulations, 2018 was treated as distinct from penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, so the regulatory penalty did not bar additional statutory penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the notice issued by the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence was invalid for want of proper officer authority in proceedings for confiscation and penalty; (ii) whether the customs broker could escape liability for misdeclaration in shipping bills filed in the name of a non-participating exporter at the behest of another person; (iii) whether penalty under Regulation 10 of the Customs Broker's Licensing Regulations, 2018 barred imposition of penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the same conduct.

Issue (i): whether the notice issued by the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence was invalid for want of proper officer authority in proceedings for confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The challenge based on the proper officer objection was rejected because the reliance on Canon India was held to be misplaced. The ruling in that case was confined to a notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 for recovery of duty not paid, whereas the present proceedings concerned confiscation and penalties. It was also noted that the Canon India decision was later reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The notice was held to be valid and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): whether the customs broker could escape liability for misdeclaration in shipping bills filed in the name of a non-participating exporter at the behest of another person.

Analysis: The goods were found to be misdeclared and liable to confiscation. The shipping bills were filed without any request or authorization from the purported exporter and were filed at the behest of another person. On those facts, the filing was treated as a benami or pseudonymous act, and the customs broker was held responsible for the fraud and misdeclaration that rendered the goods liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: The customs broker was held liable for the misdeclaration and could not avoid responsibility.

Issue (iii): whether penalty under Regulation 10 of the Customs Broker's Licensing Regulations, 2018 barred imposition of penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the same conduct.

Analysis: The penalty under the Customs Broker's Licensing Regulations, 2018 was treated as a regulatory consequence for breach of obligations under those regulations, while Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 applied to acts or omissions rendering export goods liable to confiscation. The two provisions were held to operate in different fields and one did not exclude the other.

Conclusion: The imposition of penalty under Section 114(iii) was held to be maintainable notwithstanding the regulatory penalty.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in all material respects and the penalty order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings for confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 are not invalidated by the limitation applicable to duty-recovery notices under Section 28, and a customs broker who files unauthorized benami shipping bills causing misdeclaration may be penalized under Section 114(iii) independently of regulatory penalties under the Customs Broker's Licensing Regulations, 2018.

---